Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Functions that can fail spuriously should be wrapped in a loop.  The atomic_compare_exchange_weak() and atomic_compare_exchange_weak_explicit() functions both attempt to set an atomic variable to a new value , but only if it currently possesses a known old value. Unlike their cousins the related functions atomic_compare_exahcngeexchange_strong() and atomic_compare_exchange_strong_explicit(), these functions are permitted to "fail spuriously", which makes them faster on some platforms. C11, section . This makes these functions faster on some platforms—for example, on architectures that implement compare-and-exchange using load-linked/store-conditional instructions, such as Alpha, ARM, MIPS, and PowerPC. The C Standard, 7.17.7.4, paragraph 6 says:

EXAMPLE A consequence of spurious failure is that nearly all uses of weak compare-and-exchange will be in a loop. exp

4 [ISO/IEC 9899:2011], describes this behavior:

A weak compare-and-exchange operation may fail spuriously. That is, even when the contents of memory referred to by expected and object are equal, it may return zero and store back to expected the same memory contents that were originally there.

Noncompliant Code Example

In this noncompliant code example, reorganize_data_structure() is to be used as an argument to thrd_create().  After reorganizing, the function attempts to replace the head pointer so that it points to the new version.  If no other thread has changed the head pointer since it was originally loaded, reorganize_data_structure() is intended to exit the thread with a result of true, indicating success.  Otherwise, the new reorganization attempt is discarded and the thread is exited with a result of false.  However, atomic_compare_exchange_weak() may fail even when the head pointer has not changed. Therefore, reorganize_data_structure() may perform the work and then discard it unnecessarily.

Code Block
bgColor#FFcccc
langc
#include <stdatomic.h>
#include <stdbool.h>

struct data {
  struct data *next;
  /* ... */
};

extern void cleanup_data_structure(struct data *head);

int reorganize_data_structure(void *thread_arg) {
  struct data *_Atomic *ptr_to_head = thread_arg;
  struct data *old_head = atomic_load(
&cur
ptr_to_head);
 
do { des = function(exp); } while (!
 struct data *new_head;
  bool success;

  /* ... Reorganize the data structure ... */

  success = atomic_compare_exchange_weak(
&cur, &exp, des)); When a compare-and-exchange is in a loop, the weak version will yield better performance on some platforms. When a weak compare-and-exchange would require a loop and a strong one would not, the strong one is preferable.
ptr_to_head,
                                         &old_head, new_head);
  if (!success) {
    cleanup_data_structure(new_head);
  }
  return success; /* Exit the thread */
}

Compliant Solution (atomic_compare_exchange_weak())

To recover from spurious failures, a loop must be used.  However, atomic_compare_exchange_weak() might fail because the head pointer changed, or the failure may be spurious. In either case, the thread must perform the work repeatedly until the compare-and-exchange succeeds, as shown in this compliant solution:

The cnd_wait() and cnd_timedwait() functions temporarily cede possession of a mutex so that other threads that may be requesting the mutex can proceed. These functions must always be called from code that is protected by some kind of lock. The waiting thread resumes execution only after it has been notified, generally as the result of the invocation of the cnd_signal() or cnd_broadcast() function by some other thread. The cnd_wait() function must be invoked from a loop that checks whether a condition predicate holds. A condition predicate is an expression constructed from the variables of a function that must be true for a thread to be allowed to continue execution. The thread pauses execution, via cnd_wait(), cnd_timedwait(), or some other mechanism, and is resumed later, presumably when the condition predicate is true and when the thread is notified. Note that a condition predicate is typically the negation of the condition expression in the loop. For example, the condition predicate for removing an element from a linked list is (list->next != NULL), whereas the condition expression for the while loop condition is (list->next == NULL). Following is the correct way to invoke the cnd_wait() function when the list is empty.

 

Code Block
bgColor#ccccff
langc
struct node_t
#include <stdatomic.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stddef.h>

struct data {
  struct 
void
data *
node
next;
  
struct node_t* next;
/* ... */
};

struct
extern void 
node_t list; static mtx_t lock; static cnd_t condition; void consume_list_element() { int result; if ((result = mtx_lock(&lock)) != thrd_success) { /* handle error */ } while (list.next ==
cleanup_data_structure(struct data *head);

int reorganize_data_structure(void *thread_arg) {
  struct data *_Atomic *ptr_to_head = thread_arg;
  struct data *old_head = atomic_load(ptr_to_head);
  struct data *new_head = NULL;
  struct data *saved_old_head;
  bool success;

  do {
    if (new_head != NULL) {
    
if
 
((result = cnd_wait(&condition, &lock)) != thrd_success) {
 cleanup_data_structure(new_head);
    }
    saved_old_head = old_head;

  /*
handle error
 ... Reorganize the data structure ... */

  } while (!(success 
}
= atomic_compare_exchange_weak(
  
}
 
  
/*
 
Resume
 
when
 
condition
 
holds
 
*/
  
if
 
((result
 
=
 
mtx_unlock(&lock)) != thrd_success) { /* handle error */ } }
ptr_to_head, &old_head, new_head
             )) && old_head == saved_old_head);
  return success; /* Exit the thread */
}

This loop could also be part of a larger control flow; for example, the thread from the noncompliant code example could be retried if it returns false.

Compliant Solution (atomic_compare_exchange_strong())

When a weak compare-and-exchange would require a loop and a strong one would not, the strong one is preferable, as in this compliant solution:

Code Block
bgColor#ccccff
langc
#include <stdatomic.h>
#include <stdbool.h>

struct data {
  struct data *next;
  /* ... */
};

extern void cleanup_data_structure(struct data *head);

int reorganize_data_structure(void *thread_arg) {
  struct data *_Atomic *ptr_to_head = thread_arg;
  struct data *old_head = atomic_load(ptr_to_head);
  struct data *new_head;
  bool success;

  /* ... Reorganize the data structure ... */

  success = atomic_compare_exchange_strong(
    ptr_to_head, &old_head, new_head
  );
  if (!success) {
    cleanup_data_structure(new_head);
  }
  return success; /* Exit the thread */
}

Risk Assessment

Failing to wrap the atomic_compare_exchange_weak() and atomic_compare_exchange_weak_explicit() functions in a loop can result in incorrect values and control flow

 

The notification mechanism notifies the waiting thread and allows it to check its condition predicate. The invocation of cnd_signal() or cnd_broadcast() in another thread cannot precisely determine which waiting thread will be resumed. Condition predicate statements allow notified threads to determine whether they should resume upon receiving the notification. 

Both safety and liveness are concerns when using conditions. The safety property requires that all objects maintain consistent states in a multithreaded environment [Lea 2000]. The liveness property requires that every operation or function invocation execute to completion without interruption.

To guarantee liveness, programs must test the while loop condition before invoking the cnd_wait() function. This early test checks whether another thread has already satisfied the condition predicate and sent a notification. Invoking the cnd_wait() function after the notification has been sent results in indefinite blocking.

To guarantee safety, programs must test the while loop condition after returning from the cnd_wait() function. Although cnd_wait() is intended to block indefinitely until a notification is received, it must still be encased within a loop to prevent the following vulnerabilities [Bloch 2001]:

  • Thread in the middle — A third thread can acquire the lock on the shared object during the interval between a notification being sent and the receiving thread resuming execution. This third thread can change the state of the object, leaving it inconsistent. This is a TOCTOU race condition.
  • Malicious notification — A random or malicious notification can be received when the condition predicate is false. Such a notification would cancel the cnd_wait().
  • Misdelivered notification — The order in which threads execute after receipt of a cnd_broadcast() signal is unspecified. Consequently, an unrelated thread could start executing and discover that its condition predicate is satisfied. Consequently, it could resume execution, although it was required to remain dormant.
For these reasons, programs must check the condition predicate after the cnd_wait() function returns. A while loop is the best choice for checking the condition predicate both before and after invoking cnd_ait().

Noncompliant Code Example

This noncompliant code example invokes the cnd_wait() function inside a traditional if block and fails to check the postcondition after the notification is received. If the notification were accidental or malicious, the thread could wake up prematurely.

 

  int result;
  if ((result = mtx_lock(&lock)) != thrd_success) {
    /* handle error */
  }
  if (<condition does not hold>) {
    if ((result = cnd_wait(&condition, &lock)) != thrd_success) {
      /* handle error */
    }
  }
  /* Proceed when condition holds */
}

 

Compliant Solution

This compliant solution calls the cnd_wait() function from within a while loop to check the condition both before and after the call to cnd_wait().

 

 int result;
  if ((result = mtx_lock(&lock)) != thrd_success) {
    /* handle error */
  }
  while (<condition does not hold>) {
    if ((result = cnd_wait(&condition, &lock)) != thrd_success) {
      /* handle error */
    }
  }

 

  // Proceed when condition holds
}

 

Risk Assessment

Failure to encase the cnd_wait() or cnd_timedwait() functions inside a while loop can lead to indefinite blocking and denial of service (DoS)

.

Rule

Severity

Likelihood

Remediation Cost

Priority

Level

CON44

CON41-C

low

Low

unlikely

Unlikely

medium

Medium

P2

L3

Automated Detection

Tool

Version

Checker

Description

CodeSonar
Include Page
CodeSonar_V
CodeSonar_V

LANG.STRUCT.ICOL

Inappropriate Call Outside Loop

Coverity
Include Page
Coverity_V
Coverity_V
BAD_CHECK_OF_WAIT_CONDImplemented
Helix QAC

Include Page
Helix QAC_V
Helix QAC_V

C2026

C++5023


Klocwork
Include Page
Klocwork_V
Klocwork_V

CERT.CONC.ATOMIC_COMP_FAIL_IN_LOOP


Parasoft C/C++test

Include Page
Parasoft_V
Parasoft_V

CERT_C-CON41-a

Wrap functions that can fail spuriously in a loop

Polyspace Bug Finder

Include Page
Polyspace Bug Finder_V
Polyspace Bug Finder_V

CERT C: Rule CON41-CChecks for situations where functions that can spuriously fail are not wrapped in loop (rule fully covered)

Related Vulnerabilities

Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.

Related Guidelines

Key here (explains table format and definitions)

Taxonomy

Taxonomy item

Relationship

CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for JavaTHI03-J. Always invoke wait() and await() methods inside a loopPrior to 2018-01-12: CERT: Unspecified Relationship

Bibliography

[
C11
ISO/IEC 9899:2011]
Section
7.
26.3 Condition variable functions

[Bloch 2001]

Item 50. Never invoke wait outside a loop
17.7.4, "The atomic_compare_exchange Generic Functions"

[Lea 2000]

1.3.2, "Liveness"
3.2.2, "Monitor Mechanics

; 1.3.2, Liveness

 

"



Image Added Image Added Image AddedImage Removed      Image Removed      Image Removed